Author Topic: Over protective mommy?  (Read 8044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

deadbody

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 880
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #60 on: May 16, 2013, 11:15:16 AM »
If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.


I work downtown in a city where many professionals use public transportation.  In the winter it can be very cold.  I dress well, as do the majority of people who are on my routes at the times I am, and we are frequently asked to move from the warm vestibule of a nearby building to the cold busstop because the building, while a public space, does not want any loitering.  In my area, the rules appear to be enforced evenly.

Warm building vestibules are private property (in general).  Bus stop benches are not.

LeveeWoman

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #61 on: May 16, 2013, 11:24:34 AM »
Regarding public space, sharing, and intended use...taken to the extreme this is whythe police kick homeless people out of bus stop shelters and off park benches, and people are not allowed to loiter in various public places.  A homeless man sleeping on a park bench was there first, but the intended purpose of the public park bench is not for someone to sleep on it for hours at a time but rather to be a spot for multiple people to rest as needed throughout the day.

Actually most of that is due to the "Broken Window" therom.  That if you let vagrants hang out all day loitering you will attract more vagrants and so on.  If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.

Those laws are selectively enforced in an effort to remove undesirables from an area, not because they are monopolizing the bench.

Are you claiming that a well-dressed person would be allowed to sleep on a bench while a vagrant wouldn't be allowed to sit on a bench reading a book all day?

bah12

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #62 on: May 16, 2013, 11:28:01 AM »
To me, this all comes down to balancing.  It doesn't have to be "sharing means giving me what I want when I want it" and "first-come-first-serve means I can do whatever I want for as long as I want because I was here first."

I think that what the preschools are teaching in regards to sharing is not that kids don't have to share, but that sharing doesn't mean that the kids' right to use of an item is forfeited the second someone else says they want to use it.  Just like having the right to first use, doesn't imply exclusive or excessive use. 

Many posters have asked "what is excessive and what is reasonable"...and really that's a judgement call.  The world isn't going to hand down this nice book of black and white rules...swinging is 30 minutes, soccer is 2 hours, etc.  And I don't think etiquette is that stringent.  If you're using the soccer field to play disc golf and someone else wants to use it for soccer, then just say "I'll be done at X time".  I don't know the exact time that's reasonable, but I do know saying "I'm using it all day" or "I'm done when I'm done" isn't being considerate of other people's right to use of a public space.

And I do think that using equipment for other than it's intended purpose is fine until someone wants to use it for it's intended purpose.  The example of the water aerobics in a swimming lane is a good one.  To continue to monopolize a lane intended for fast lap swimming simply because they were there first is inconsiderate and rude.

Basically, no one has the right in polite society to blanketly trump someone else (excluding emergency situations)...if you're using something, then continue to use it and be cognizant of someone else's need/desire to use the same thing.  Be fair, give yourself a reasonable time limit (and that's a judgement call on what that exact time is) and then turn over the item to the next person.  That's what being polite and considerate is...it is not being a doormat. 

And I really don't think we need laws and written rules/signs to tell us this.  We should be able to use our good judgement independant of someone else telling us what to do....at least in this instance.

deadbody

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 880
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #63 on: May 16, 2013, 11:33:17 AM »
Regarding public space, sharing, and intended use...taken to the extreme this is whythe police kick homeless people out of bus stop shelters and off park benches, and people are not allowed to loiter in various public places.  A homeless man sleeping on a park bench was there first, but the intended purpose of the public park bench is not for someone to sleep on it for hours at a time but rather to be a spot for multiple people to rest as needed throughout the day.

Actually most of that is due to the "Broken Window" therom.  That if you let vagrants hang out all day loitering you will attract more vagrants and so on.  If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.

Those laws are selectively enforced in an effort to remove undesirables from an area, not because they are monopolizing the bench.

Are you claiming that a well-dressed person would be allowed to sleep on a bench while a vagrant wouldn't be allowed to sit on a bench reading a book all day?

Yes.  As I have napped on benches (granted sitting up instead of laying down) without ever being approached, and I have seen poorly dressed people being hassled for simply sitting on bus stop benches by the local police.

bah12

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #64 on: May 16, 2013, 11:38:33 AM »
Regarding public space, sharing, and intended use...taken to the extreme this is whythe police kick homeless people out of bus stop shelters and off park benches, and people are not allowed to loiter in various public places.  A homeless man sleeping on a park bench was there first, but the intended purpose of the public park bench is not for someone to sleep on it for hours at a time but rather to be a spot for multiple people to rest as needed throughout the day.

Actually most of that is due to the "Broken Window" therom.  That if you let vagrants hang out all day loitering you will attract more vagrants and so on.  If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.

Those laws are selectively enforced in an effort to remove undesirables from an area, not because they are monopolizing the bench.

Are you claiming that a well-dressed person would be allowed to sleep on a bench while a vagrant wouldn't be allowed to sit on a bench reading a book all day?

Yes.  As I have napped on benches (granted sitting up instead of laying down) without ever being approached, and I have seen poorly dressed people being hassled for simply sitting on bus stop benches by the local police.

I think sitting on a park bench is fine...regardless of how you're dressed.  I also think that lying down on a park bench, when others also are around needing a place to sit, is rude...also regardless of how you are dressed.

Benches are for sitting.  Lying down on them is nice and is ok, but if others need to sit, taking up the additional space is rude. 

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8716
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #65 on: May 16, 2013, 11:41:20 AM »
Regarding public space, sharing, and intended use...taken to the extreme this is whythe police kick homeless people out of bus stop shelters and off park benches, and people are not allowed to loiter in various public places.  A homeless man sleeping on a park bench was there first, but the intended purpose of the public park bench is not for someone to sleep on it for hours at a time but rather to be a spot for multiple people to rest as needed throughout the day.

Actually most of that is due to the "Broken Window" therom.  That if you let vagrants hang out all day loitering you will attract more vagrants and so on.  If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.

Those laws are selectively enforced in an effort to remove undesirables from an area, not because they are monopolizing the bench.

Are you claiming that a well-dressed person would be allowed to sleep on a bench while a vagrant wouldn't be allowed to sit on a bench reading a book all day?

Yes.  As I have napped on benches (granted sitting up instead of laying down) without ever being approached, and I have seen poorly dressed people being hassled for simply sitting on bus stop benches by the local police.

I think sitting on a park bench is fine...regardless of how you're dressed.  I also think that lying down on a park bench, when others also are around needing a place to sit, is rude...also regardless of how you are dressed.

Benches are for sitting.  Lying down on them is nice and is ok, but if others need to sit, taking up the additional space is rude.

I don't think deadbody's point has to do with whether people should or shouldn't nap on benches, though--the point is that the authorities often judge the behavior based on appearance, and kick out poor-looking people for things they let rich-looking people get away with.

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5633
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2013, 11:46:16 AM »
I don't think deadbody's point has to do with whether people should or shouldn't nap on benches, though--the point is that the authorities often judge the behavior based on appearance, and kick out poor-looking people for things they let rich-looking people get away with.

I believe that this has been deadbody's experience, but it has not been mine at all.

TootsNYC

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 30461
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #67 on: May 16, 2013, 12:33:29 PM »
And it's really irrelevant to the etiquette issue we are discussing.

bah12

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #68 on: May 16, 2013, 02:10:29 PM »
Regarding public space, sharing, and intended use...taken to the extreme this is whythe police kick homeless people out of bus stop shelters and off park benches, and people are not allowed to loiter in various public places.  A homeless man sleeping on a park bench was there first, but the intended purpose of the public park bench is not for someone to sleep on it for hours at a time but rather to be a spot for multiple people to rest as needed throughout the day.

Actually most of that is due to the "Broken Window" therom.  That if you let vagrants hang out all day loitering you will attract more vagrants and so on.  If a nicely dressed person wanted to sit on a park bench (or bus-stop) all day reading a book they wouldn't be hassled at all.

Those laws are selectively enforced in an effort to remove undesirables from an area, not because they are monopolizing the bench.

Are you claiming that a well-dressed person would be allowed to sleep on a bench while a vagrant wouldn't be allowed to sit on a bench reading a book all day?

Yes.  As I have napped on benches (granted sitting up instead of laying down) without ever being approached, and I have seen poorly dressed people being hassled for simply sitting on bus stop benches by the local police.

I think sitting on a park bench is fine...regardless of how you're dressed.  I also think that lying down on a park bench, when others also are around needing a place to sit, is rude...also regardless of how you are dressed.

Benches are for sitting.  Lying down on them is nice and is ok, but if others need to sit, taking up the additional space is rude.

I don't think deadbody's point has to do with whether people should or shouldn't nap on benches, though--the point is that the authorities often judge the behavior based on appearance, and kick out poor-looking people for things they let rich-looking people get away with.

I get that.  I was just stating my opinion on it.  And it doesn't tie directly to what we started talking about on this thread, but does somewhat tie into the broader discussion that ensued, which is using public equipment for it's intended purpose, and whether or not it was rude to use it in some other form.

Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4832
Re: Over protective mommy?
« Reply #69 on: May 16, 2013, 04:02:00 PM »
To me, this all comes down to balancing.  It doesn't have to be "sharing means giving me what I want when I want it" and "first-come-first-serve means I can do whatever I want for as long as I want because I was here first."

I think that what the preschools are teaching in regards to sharing is not that kids don't have to share, but that sharing doesn't mean that the kids' right to use of an item is forfeited the second someone else says they want to use it.  Just like having the right to first use, doesn't imply exclusive or excessive use. 

Many posters have asked "what is excessive and what is reasonable"...and really that's a judgement call.  The world isn't going to hand down this nice book of black and white rules...swinging is 30 minutes, soccer is 2 hours, etc.  And I don't think etiquette is that stringent.  If you're using the soccer field to play disc golf and someone else wants to use it for soccer, then just say "I'll be done at X time".  I don't know the exact time that's reasonable, but I do know saying "I'm using it all day" or "I'm done when I'm done" isn't being considerate of other people's right to use of a public space.

And I do think that using equipment for other than it's intended purpose is fine until someone wants to use it for it's intended purpose.  The example of the water aerobics in a swimming lane is a good one.  To continue to monopolize a lane intended for fast lap swimming simply because they were there first is inconsiderate and rude.

Basically, no one has the right in polite society to blanketly trump someone else (excluding emergency situations)...if you're using something, then continue to use it and be cognizant of someone else's need/desire to use the same thing.  Be fair, give yourself a reasonable time limit (and that's a judgement call on what that exact time is) and then turn over the item to the next person.  That's what being polite and considerate is...it is not being a doormat. 

And I really don't think we need laws and written rules/signs to tell us this.  We should be able to use our good judgement independant of someone else telling us what to do....at least in this instance.

POD to this. That's what I would want my kids to learn: you don't have to give up something just because someone else wants it right then, but you do have to be aware of other people waiting to use it, too, and relinquish it to give them a turn at some "reasonable" time. Of course "reasonable" is a tough word because sensible people can disagree on how long is "reasonable" for any given situation. And then throw in people who aren't reasonable, or people who apparently aren't paying much attention to what their kids are doing (like the other mom in the OP), and things can get awkward. But that's life. And this can be applied to a lot of things later, like... using the communal copier at work, for example.
~Lynn2000